Slashdot Mirror
MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?
What follows is the Press Release MySQL AB has released attacking MySQL.org (and NuSphere). It was submitted to us by Marten Mickos from MySQL
MYSQL COMMUNITY THREATENED BY OBSCURE .ORG WEBSITE
Uppsala, Sweden, 12 July 2001 - Open source software company MySQL AB today announced that an unauthorised party has set up a website on www.mysql.ORG in direct violation of the trademark rights of MySQL AB and with the apparent goal to confuse the huge worldwide community of MySQL users.
Michael "Monty" Widenius and David Axmark, co-founders of MySQL AB and the creators of this world-leading open source database software commented "We normally welcome new sites that focus on the MySQL(TM) server, but this one violates our trademark and may lead users to wrongfully believe it represents the people behind the MySQL(TM) server. We were not contacted about this website and it operates without our authorisation. We cannot recommend anybody to visit that site."
The obscure .ORG site claims to offer free services, but a registration is needed for downloading the software that apparently has been copied from the official MySQL.com website. The .ORG site fails to display information of the people or organisations behind it. The domain was registered in the name of NuSphere Corporation, a subsidiary of Progress Software Corporation (NASDAQ: PRGS), on 4 June 2001. Both companies sell proprietary, non-open software.
The original and official MySQL.com website of MySQL AB is immensely popular and serves millions of users with free software, free information, and an opportunity for visitors to contribute comments and other things, such as additional tools and utilities. No registration is required for accessing MySQL.com. In addition, the MySQL(TM) server is a popular topic on several other open source websites such as Slashdot.
Yahoo! has been using MySQL(TM) servers in mission-critical applications for several years. Jeremy Zawodny, a member of the MySQL user community and an engineer at Yahoo! commented "I really don't see the need for the MySQL.org Web site. The MySQL.com site already contains a wealth of information and software from the MySQL developers and members of the community. I worry that the introduction of this Web site will confuse new users and potentially fracture or otherwise harm the MySQL user community."
Marten Mickos, newly appointed CEO of MySQL AB, commented "We consider operating the mysql.ORG site illegal activity and we are taking steps to enforce our trademark and other rights." In respect to how the MySQL(TM) community is served, he said "We will continue to serve existing and new MySQL(TM) users with software under GPL and free information without requiring registration. Our new 'portals' present an even wider array of useful information and services, and users are free to comment on the items there. At the same time, we have the best commercial support services for the MySQL(TM) server and as the owners of the software we are the only ones who can sell commercial licences." MySQL AB develops, supports and markets the MySQL(TM) database server worldwide. MySQL AB, the sole owner of the MySQL(TM) trademark, is fully committed to the Open Source philosophy and to making MySQL(TM) available and affordable for all. MySQL AB is a Swedish privately held company co-founded by David Axmark, Allan Larsson and Michael Widenius. MySQL(TM) is a trademark of MySQL AB in the US, Sweden, and other countries, and is registered in Sweden and 13 other countries. Other names are trademarks of their respective owners. For more information, please visit www.mysql.com or write to press@mysql.com."
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, I don't think the two are contradictory - Lets say you want to build a for-profit company around Free Software, giving your users the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the code, but still need a way to distinguish yourself.
One way to do this would be to say that anyone can make changes to the code and whatever, but they cannot distribute alternate versions of the code under the name of your program -- I don't see anything wrong with this, really, b/c they have no way of performing quality control over someone else's code. They could still build a product based on this code, but they'd have to rename it rather than riding on the coattails of your success.
This has already been covered to some extent with Red Hat. You can redistribute versions of Red Hat, but you can't brand it as official "Red Hat Linux." Again, I don't think that's contrary to the spirit or terms of the GPL. Even RMS might have a problem if someone started distributing a fork of GNU Emacs this way -- especially if they included proprietary add-ons. Even if it was all GPL'ed, though - there could be questions of quality or whatnot.
In the open source world, you live or die by your name - your reputation is what gets you recognition, as a single developer (JWZ, Linus), as a project (KDE, MySQL) or as a company (SuSE, Mandrake).
Now, you'll note above that I listed MySQL as a *project* above. The problem is, there is also a *company* named MySQL who wants to clearly define themselves as an entity so that they can take crdit for what they do. As a recent example, I wanted to look into Everybuddy, the IM client, and I reflexively hit www.everybuddy.org to take a look. Nope - no site. (A quick fm:everybuddy in Konqueror found it). The point is, the dot Org is where many people start their search into new projects.
And it's still considered bad form, even if not technically illegal, to fork a project without renaming it. Almost every time a project is forked, a completely different name is given to it (Athera from Magellen, XEmacs from emacs, *BSD from BSD). That's just playing nice with your fellow developers. If the two different products based on the MySQL source (and yes, having a completely different table type means you're running a different server) want to compete on a fair playing field, both commercially and open source, they should be readily distinguisable.
And again, part of the problem is the fact that MySQL is both the name of a OS product *and* the name of the company.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I'm sorry, but I think that you're argument is incorrect. You're first assumption is bad, IMHO: you are not, in fact, defending your trademark by registering only the *.mysql.com domain name. Let's look at examples from another namespace, corporation names.
Example 1:
Company Foogiston, Inc. was incorporated in 1998 and makes Foogiston (TM) brand floogle-binders. Then, another company is incorporated in 2001 as Foogiston Systems, Ltd. and they make Foogiston Ltd. (TM) floogle-binders. Foogiston, Inc. is obviously upset, since it is very easy to confuse the two names and products. Foogiston, Inc. sues Foogiston Systems, Ltd. over the trademark, and probably wins, since they were incorporated first.
Example 2:
Foogiston, Inc. is incorporated in 1998 and makes Foogiston (TM) brand floogle-binders. Foogiston Systems, Ltd. is incorporated in 2001 and makes a software product called Foog! (TM). Since the companies have no common product, can Foogiston, Inc. sue Foogiston Systems, Ltd.? I don't think they'd win any such law suit, because they can't show that their floogle-binder product is hurt by the similar names. There's no material damage.
Example 3 (bringing it back to domains):
Foogiston, Inc. is a publishing house that prints Foog Magazine (TM), was incorporated in 1998, and has registered www.foog.com, www.foogmagazine.com (pointer to www.foog.com) and www.foogiston.com (the corporate website). Bill Whiteguy registers an online 'zine called www.foog-zine.net. Can Foogiston, Inc. sue Mr. Whiteguy because for trademark infringement? You bet they can, because it is a similar product (website content) that bears a striking resemblance to Foogiston, Inc.'s product (online offering of magazine content) in product and name. This has happened many times, both justified and not.
The difference here is that MySQL.org is selling a slightly different version of the MySQL.com product. This is even worse than the above scenarios, becuase it is not only likely, but inevitable that someone (how many pointy-haireds are out there?) will confuse these products because of the strong similarities in the products AND the names.
For MySQL AB to protect their trademark, they need to ask NuSphere to not use their trademarked name in a confusing and (what they most likely consider) abusive manner. Just like I can't set up Foogiston Systems, Ltd. and make Foogiston Ltd. flooglebinders, MySQL AB shouldn't let NuSphere sell a modified version of their GPL'd software from the mysql.org website.
The issue with gTLDs being useful in that "different entitiees with the same name can have a domain with their name in it" doesn't hold when similar, or in this case nearly the same, product is being sold. I won't address the rest of your remarks, because I feel that your whole argument is flawed as shown above.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I wonder what Mr. Taco would have thought if three years ago (before the Andover takeover), someone set up a site called www.slashdot.com that had embraced and extended Slashcode and was selling it and support for it to websites without giving a dime to him. I think that he would be singing a different tune.
This is a fundamental problem with the "information wants to be free" argument that some people use to justify their Napster & software warezing/pirating habits: "It's just information (trademarks, music, etc.), and it should be free for me to do whatever I want to do with it". Unless it's my name, music, code, graphics, etc., etc. Then you find that you have to defend it.
This is a trademark issue. If you register a trademark, you have to defend it, or you won't be able to defend it in the future. I don't see any problem with someone saying, "Hey. I registered Foogiston, Inc. and www.foogiston.com, and I don't want you registering www.foogiston.org". What would have been better would be to register foogiston.org yourself, but if you got beat to the punch, you should still be able to tell someone not to use your trademark in their name.
I know that a lot of people don't like intellectual property here, but really. This is something that has precident and is defensible in court. I also don't like the language in the press release, becuase it shows a lack of maturity and professionalism on the part of MySQL AB, but that's doesn't detract from the core of their arguement.
Just my $0.02.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
MySQL is GPLed, and NuSphere is _distributing_ (by selling it) an extension based on that code. Now, my understanding of the GPL and projects based upon it, would proscribe that NuSphere uses the opportunity of mysql.org to blast about the source code, if they don't talk about MySQL AB (and a small link don't quite cut it)
Am I the only one that is too stupid to find the link for the source of the gemini table types?
(Well, if they're going to get that bent out of shape over a fork ... heh)
.ORG WEBSITE
.ORG site claims to offer free software, but sends users derivatives of the software that apparently has been copied from the official GNU ftp site. The .ORG site fails to display information of the people or organisations behind it. The domain was registered in the name of XEmacs Advocacy Group, on 28 April 1996. Both companies make non-proprietary, free software.
What follows is the Press Release the Free Software Foundation has released attacking Xemacs.org (and Lucid). It was submitted to us by Richard Stallman from the FSF
EMACS COMMUNITY THREATENED BY OBSCURE
Boston, MA, 1 April 2001 -
The Free Software Foundation today announced that an unauthorised party has set up a website on www.xemacs.ORG in direct violation of the trademark rights of the Free Software Foundation and with the apparent goal to confuse the huge worldwide community of Emacs users.
Richard "rms" Stallman founder of the Free Software Foundation and the creator of this world-leading Free text editing / programming software commented "We normally welcome new sites that focus on EMACS, but this one violates our trademark and may lead users to wrongfully believe it represents the people behind the EMACS software. We were not contacted about this website and it operates without our authorisation. We cannot recommend anybody to visit that site."
The obscure
The original and official EMACS ftp site of the FSF is immensely popular and serves millions of users with free software, free information, and an opportunity for visitors to contribute comments and other things, such as additional tools and utilities. No registration is required for accessing ftp.fsf.org. In addition, the EMACS package is a popular topic on several other free software websites such as Slashdot.
Yahoo! has been using EMACS in mission-critical applications for several years. Mr. J.Z., a member of the EMACS user community and an engineer at Yahoo! commented "I really don't see the need for the xemacs.org Web site. The FSF site already contains a wealth of information and software from the EMACS developers and members of the community. I worry that the introduction of this Web site will confuse new users and potentially fracture or otherwise harm the EMACS user community."
Richard Stallman, not-so-newly appointed leader of the FSF, commented "We consider operating the xemacs.ORG site illegal activity and we are taking steps to enforce our trademark and other rights." In respect to how the EMACS community is served, he said "We will continue to serve existing and new EMACS users with software under GPL and free information without requiring registration. Our new 'portals' present an even wider array of useful information and services, and users are free to comment on the items there. At the same time, we have the best contract programming / customizations services for the EMACS package and as the owners of the software we are the only ones who can sell commercial licences. Not that we would." The Free Software Foundation develops, supports and markets the EMACS package worldwide. The Free Software Foundation, the sole owner of the EMACS trademark, is fully committed to the Free Software philosophy and to making EMACS available and affordable for all. The Free Softare Foundation is an American privately held not-for-profit company co-founded by some benevolent folk on the east coast. EMACS is a trademark of The Free Software Foundation in the US, Sweden, and other countries, and is registered in Sweden and 13 other countries. Other names are trademarks of their respective owners. For more information, please visit www.fsf.org or write to press@gnu.org."
(Note: If you do not recognize the above as parody, Go Away.)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
I'm not gonna try to slander the OS movement, cause I see it as a very good thing, but...
Isn't it self contradictory on one hand to produce a product as Open Source - releasing the content IP to the world freely - while fighting vigorously to protect the trademark - restricting identification/brand name IP from the world?
I don't care if a company doesn't release the source and fights for its trademarks - and similarly, it's a non-issue of someone puts out the source and doesn't enforce a trademark. But does a trademark on an open source product become free or not?
Then again, it's important not to confuse OS with free software. But how does the ideaology of OS affect trademark enforcement?
Nusphere is pretty far from a non-profit organization. But then again, so is Slashdot.
.edu now?
I once taught someone to write PHP code. Can I register for a
Just last night I looked into the possibility of running slashcode on my website. So, I read the FAQ and saw that I needed mysql installed. I instinctively went to www.mysql.org and downloaded the source. Now this morning I read this article, and I have no idea if I downloaded the 'official' mySQL or not! This is name dilution at its worst, and something needs to be done to stop confusing clueless newbies such as myself.
This case is much sinister. MySQL is the company name not just a product that they make. It seems to me that NuSphere is trying to fool people into believeing that they have the genuine MySQL when in fact they do not. MySQL AB seems to be complaining because, 1. NuSphere is requiring registration to get software that they wrote. 2. NuSphere is releasing the Gemini table type in violation of MySQL's lisense (unclear on this but isn't it GPL?) because its not open. And 3. NuSphere is trying to capitalize on MySQL's popularity by stealing the name. I think the MySQL folks (no matter what you think of their database) are perfectly justified in their action. They don't mind NuSphere extending MySQL but they want people to play by their rules because it their work and they have that right.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
How can this extension not be not licensed under GPL? To extend MySQL some sort of linking would have to be done, and this would make their extension fall under the GPL unless they have received an exception from MySQL AB.
I think that if someone did that to my project I'd be kinda peeved too... by not pointing people at the GPL portion of the project's main site, they are just asking for project splits. If I make a change, and I've only looked at mysql.org, I'd never know who to tell about my change to get it in the main distro....
---
Yeah, it's fast and supports transactions. BUT, at least in the last stable release, there were still some nasty catches. One I do recall was that the database could have no more than 1023 tables of the gemini type.
So if you do use it, make damn sure you read the docs on it and use it wisely given its limitations. IMHO, all of the new table types designed to give MySQL ACID-level database behavior have flaws, so you'd be better off using something with more mature suport if you need this (like PostgreSQL or a commercial rdbms).
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
So exactly whom among you thought that Adobe should burn in hell for daring to ask kIllustrator to change its name? Who among those now think that MySQL.org ought to change ITS name?
It occurs to me that there are a lot of sheep wandering aimlessly; with no clue as to what is going on. Folks, you cant have it both ways.
Taco, how about it? Poll this, I'd love to see the results.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
- "mysql.com and mysql.org are COMPLETELY different. I don't see how could anyone could POSSIBLY confuse the two."
- "If MySQL AB doesn't instantly sue NuSphere for everything they've got, they lose their right to the trademark."
- "NuSphere should move to Sealand. Or Afghanistan."
- ...
The notion that seems really foreign around here, though, is that there are issues of respect and courtesy that go beyond what you think the law could possibly allow you to get away with. If you want to run mysql.org, clear it first with the company that makes MySql.Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
I'd mod tis up, but don't have any moderator points, so I'll just reply instead.
BUT, the creators of MySQL do and should be allowed to keep a trademark on their name. They put forth the original effort in writing the code, and should receive credit for it, regardless of whether its financial. By registering MySQL.org, NuSphere is getting the attention of people who weren't actually looking for the Gemini code, (had they been, they'd type in NuSphere.com)...
This happened about two years ago with Slashdot. Someone else had registered slashdot.com, made a framed page on which one frame led to slashdot.org and the other was a banner. Now I'm sure that everyone would agree that Slashdot should have been able to take over the slashdot.com domain, as the person who was owning it at the time was making money off of someone else's work.
This is no different. NuSphere is capitalizing on MySQL's name (sure maybe they're well-known too, but not nearly as well as MySQL) and MySQL should be allowed to keep their name.
just my panney's worth...
MySQL(TM) should have registered...
MySQL.com
MySQL.net
MySQL.org
MySQL.co.uk
MySQL.gov
MySQL.mil
MySQL.mars
etc...
...when they had the chance. That's what almost every other company does. Even slashdot (www.slashdot.org, www.slashdot.com).
For one, if you go to mysql.org you will find that it doesn't say whether it developed the software, it just says it's got mysql software available for 'free' download. But the mysql.com guy is correct, in that you cannot download any software without registering with mysql.org first. That indicates to me that it's not 'free' because now mysql.org has customer data to use to market their product to. Plus, it doesn't say: "Hey, we didn't write the software, mysql.com is where you can find that info. We just improved upon it." Besides, I don't think .org websites should ever be for-profit businesses as that is not how that domain was intended to be used.
Isn't it self contradictory on one hand to produce a product as Open Source...while fighting vigorously to protect the trademark?
It's not hypocritical at all. It's very important that when a name like "MySQL" or "Perl" or "Linux" represents a standard for compatibility, that name remain meaningful. If it weren't for trademark law, malicious companies could embrace and subvert all our open-source languages by creating their own incompatible versions, releasing the code, and stealing the brand in public perception with a big marketing blitz. Most people are not going to take the time to sort it out if many sites are providing different versions of Perl, and if Microsoft pre-installed a "Perl" that only ran under Windows and allowed embedded Visual Basic, people would use it and think it's Perl. Only trademark law prevents them from doing this.
AbiWord uses this combination of copyright (to keep the code open) and trademark (to keep the name meaningful), and they have a nice FAQ about the AbiWord trademark which explains both the legal and the philosophical issues (see also this post).
All of that said, the real issue here is that MySQL was dumb not to register every available form of their domain.
If you are going to go all proprietary software on us, why don't you just go all the way and get a real database from Oracle or Sybase, so the response time aren't so shitty.
Is your company running tools written by ma
Also remember, MySQL has to defend its trademark, or run the risk of losing it. (IANAL)
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
We DID talk to NuSphere earlier and asked them to give us the mysql.org domain name that they had managed to acquire. But they refused, and now they set up this .org site without our knowledge.
Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
We have tried to get a partnership up and running with NuSphere, because we were enthused by the plans they had. But they did not live up the interim agreement we had, they used our trademark beyond what was agreed, and they didn't put Gemini under GPL as planned.
We don't mind competition or websites focusing on our product, but we do mind wrongful use of our trademark and other rights. They never mentioned to us that they were launching the mysql.org site.
Our business model is based on partnerships, and we are getting new partners every day, and we don't see them as "the competition".
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB